[Libburn] yet another libisofs rewrite
neeman at webone.com.au
Sat Feb 11 11:28:33 PST 2006
Dana Jansens wrote:
>Seeing as you wanted it for int64_t...and we don't need it now. Is it
>really worth it for the lack of portability? It's not like you can do
>anything in C99 that you can't in C90. I took it out of the CFLAGS for
>now since we don't need it to address the size issue... do you still
>want to support it?
For me, I don't _need_ any C99 features, but there are a couple things
that I think makes the code clearer. If there are portability issues I'm
happy to drop my request.
- I like to put assertions at the top of a function, where it's easy to
see (mixing declarations and code)
- I like to use variable sized arrays instead of mallocs where possible
(it simplifies early returns on errors)
- I like to use anonymous unions because I'm lazy and it saves typing
(and it probably helps readability, too)
None of these are essential, so I can do without, but is there really a
lack of compiler support?
More information about the libburn